From the Dutch Agricultural Inquiry of 1890. {Thiels
G r o h m a n n’s}
 Insurance of dead and livestock of labourers
Of them
Number of
Total number
Lease-
Both
typical com-
of insured
Owners
holders
simulta-
munities
neously

Labourers
4,551
1,693
2,055


Small peas-
ants and
peasants
4,319
1,700
1,363
1,256

Big peasants
2,671

1,013


Labourers
4,551
1,693
2,055


Small peas-
ants and
peasants
4,149
1,553
1,331
1,265

Big peasants
2,670
1,022


* Thiel’s Agricultural Yearbook, Vol. 22 (1893).—Ed.

AGRICULTURAL INQUIRY OF 1890 91
L a n d w i r t s c h a f t l i c h e J a h r b ü c h e r. B. 22 (1893).*
Article
and peasants by categories and percentages
Of the total number of insured
those insured by items and percentages
Dwell-
House-
Live-
ings
%
hold
%
stock
%
Crops
%
effects
2,020
44.4
1,524
33.5


15.8
3,084
71.6
2,263
52.4
1,712
39.7
1,787
41.4
2,059

1,827
68.4
1,472
55.1
1,631
61.0
Head of insured livestock by categories
and percentages
Milch
Young
Fat
He- and
cows
%
stock
%
Sheep
%
tened
%
she-
%
pigs
goats
4,062
89.3
1,416
31.1
4,041
88.8
6,028
132.5
3,089

17,470
421.0
11,129
268.3
11,441
275.8
12,414
299.2

19.3
28,166
1,050.5
22,513
843.2
21,667
811.5
13,562
507.9


Continued:
H o r s e s
Draught
%
Geldings
 %
Young
 %
oxen
and mares
horses

1.9

2.3

0.0

6.0
3,545
85.5

8.4

3.1
7,159
268.2
1,504
56.3

V. I. LENIN

From the D u t c h Agricultural Inquiry of 1890
Number
of those
Number of those
using fer-
with farm hands
Number of those who have
tilisers
(dinstboden)
labourers
other than
manure
Categories
Communities
of farmers

v.
t.
v.
t.
v.
t.
v.
t.
v. t.*)


4 and


4 >4 >4
>
Laren
Labourers
 1- 2
?


— —


1 —
—

Carters
 2-1 0


—
51 18

1 —


—

—

—
Small peasants
10-20
?

—
—
35 29

11 —


—

—


Big ”
30-40

—
—


—

—

— —
—
Total


121 62
19 15


4 —
—
—

Geldermalsen Farmers
50 and >


—
— —

—

—

 ”
25-50


—


—

 ”
10-25


—


—

—
 ”
 1-10


—

—
 ?
Labourers
1 and <


—
—
—
—
—
—
—
(voor-Vracht)
Carters
 1-10


—
—

3 —

—
Total


—
— —


— 10 —
—
—
—
Wamel
Big peasants


—


Small peasants


—


Tobacco-planters


—
—


—
—
—
Labourers


—
—
—
—
—
—
Total
1,046


—
— —

19 10 10
— 13 —
—
—
—
Leeuwen
Big peasants


Small peasants


—


1 19

Tobacco-planters


—
—

—
—
—
Labourers


—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Total


—
— —


4 24
—
6 —
—
—
—
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|


Voorst
Big peasants
20- 70


35 46


3 13


Small peasants
1 0- 20


—
—


—

— —
Carters
 5- 1 0


—

—
—
—
—

—
—
— —
Labourers
2-


—

—
—
—
—

—
—
— —
Total


87 51

—


3 15

1 —
—
—
—
Raalte
Labourers
1-


—
—

—
—
— —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Carters
2- 10

—

—
—
— —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Small peasants
10- 20


— —

—
—
—
—
Big ”
20- 60


11 10


Total

—

122 88
12 10


—


—
—

—
Dalfsen
Big peasants


Peasants

—
—


—

Small peasants

—
—

—
—

—
—
Labourers


—
—

—
—
Total


139 18
—
— —


—
—
4 —
—
—
—
This column sometimes gives an amount in excess of the total because I summed
up the number of farms keeping 1 (2 and so on) men and women farm-hands, where-
as there are some farms which keep both. Unfortunately, the total number of farms
using hired labour i s n o t g i v e n.
This means that what can be summed up is only either the number of cases
of labour hire or the number of hired labourers (by multiplying by 1, by 2, by 3, etc.).
Farming by “labourers” (1-2 ha) appears to be typical for all the communities.
*) v.=vast (ferme, bleibend)—permanent, t.=tijdelijk (temporel, passager)—temporary,
v.=vrouwelijk (weiblich)—female.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
b

V. I. LENIN

The Inquiry is called Uitkomsten van het Onderzoek naar den
Toestand van den Landbouw in Nederland,* and was carried
out by an agrarian commission appointed by royal decree on
September 18, 1886. Four big volumes (The Hague, 1890).
Descriptions by communities are on the lines of the Ba-
den and other inquiries (but almost without budgets). Of
special interest are the tables on many communities show-
ing the distribution of farms among labourers, “carters”,
small peasants, and big peasants—(in Community No. 1,
Laren, labourers usually have 1-2 ha; “carters”, 2-10 ha;
small peasants, 10-20 ha and big peasants, 30-40 ha; p.
7, Vol. I). Here are some of the heads in the table: 1) Getal
=number of farms by size; 2) “state and location of land
established with the participation of a definite number of
farmers” (the location of the land ... on the farms is ad-
vantageous, middling, bad);—“gebruikte Mest” (use of
fertilisers: manure, artificial fertilisers—by number of
farms).—Number of horses and livestock of all categories.—
Number of farms making butter and cheese (Zuivelboeren =
peasants engaged in dairy farming). Number of farms using
“old” (alt) and “new” methods of “dairy farming”. Number
of farms keeping “farm-hands” and “labourers” under three
heads: 1 each, 2 each, “3 and more each”.
In the summing up in Vol. IV, there are summaries for
some few data relating to the communities, but there is not
a single summary for all the communities together (a total of
9 5 communities were studied).
There are different classifications by groups: 1) labour-
ers, small peasants, big peasants; 2) land area 1-5 ha, etc.,
60-70 ha, 70 ha and over, etc.; 3) horses (Community
No. 92: small peasants—with one horse; peasants, with 2
horses; big peasants, with 3 or more horses); 4) vegetable
gardeners, tobacco-planters, etc., are singled out.
Written not earlier than April 1902-
not later than April 1903
First published in 1938
Printed from the original
in Lenin Miscellany XXXII
* Results of a Study of the State of Agriculture in the Netherlands.—Ed.
N.B.
PPNNMMNNQQ

REMARKS ON E. STUMPFE’S WORKS92
A
AN ANALYSIS OF DATA FROM STUMPFE’S ARTICLE,
“ON THE COMPETITIVENESS OF SMALL
AND MEDIUM LAND HOLDINGS AS
COMPARED WITH LARGE LAND HOLDINGS”
S t u m p f e. “Über die Konkurrenzfähigkeit des kleinen
und mittleren Grundbesitzes gegenüber dem Grossgrund-
besitze.”
Thiels landwirtschaftliche
Jahrbücher, 1896, Band 5.
Stumpfe comes straight to the point by saying that if
large units in agriculture were superior to the small, as they
are in industry, the law on the settlement of Eastern Prussia
would have been a mistake, and the Social-Democrats
would have been right (p. 58).
According to the 1882 data, medium farms (10-
100 ha!!) = 12.4% of the farms and 47.6% of the land—
hence the “great economic importance of the peasantry” !
(p. 58).
9 farms [Big and medium—kept books. Small farms—
“strongest mistrust” p. 59].
Group
I. Glogau district—sandy soil, rye and potatoes.
”
II. Neumarkt and Breslau districts—good soil,
beet crops, very intensive.
”
III. Liegnitz district—lower intensiveness, weaker
root crops.

V. I. LENIN

How
Land
Crop yield
much
classification
Crop area
per Morgen
Livestock
land
Class
ha
ha
Centners
ha?
rye
potato horses
horned
cattle
Big farm
1,033
V—


7.5

23& 170
{1892-93}
VI— 203
(1,903
VII— 198
Morgen)
VIII—

Medium
21.25
? almost


2&

farm
the same
oats: 7.5
(&6 pigs)
land
Note No. 1*
Small
11.25
V— 0.25

5.25
?
1&

farm
VI— 3
(&4 pigs)
VII— 3.50
VIII— 3
Big farm
471.5
I— 212.5
361w
10.7
beet
30& 180
(1892-93)
II— 120.5

III— 59.0
wheat
12.75 (111 sheep**)
Medium
51.5
III—25
47.5
8.9
beet
6& 29
farm
IV— 13

(14 pigs)
V— 4
VI— 0.75
wheat
11.3
Small
8.5
II— 1
7.25
?
0&

farm
III— 4
(6 pigs)
IV— 3.5
Big farm

?
?
?
29& 173
(1893-94)
324 sheep
47 pigs
Medium
40.75
III— 11.5
37.25
?
7& 29
farm
IV—22.25
19 pigs
V— 3.5
Small
8.0
III— 3.60
7.75
?
?
farm
IV— 1.75
V— 2.60
* See p. 236.—Ed.
**
-
Group III
Group II
Group I
G r o u p I
A figure denoting the increase of sheep in 1892 93.—Ed.


Receipts (marks)
A m o u n t
Sales
grain
livestock
Sundries
Farm
(Total
and milk
economy
recelpts)
38,136
27,289
62,111
5,500
133,489
distillation
(“on manor
&453*
account”)
1,257

—
—
2,015


—
—
1,109
64,476 milk
21,357 beet
46,144
from lease
1ûù,û14
&
livestock
19,370 potatoes
2,866
&
1,457
sheep
6,455 fruits
5,852 (=stocks in
in general
4,767
hand)
5,574
4,050 beet

rape and clover
11,060
&198*
potatoes

1,010
1,095
—
—
ù,10ú
34,334
18,201 potatoes
1,145
from lease
68,667
other cereals
receipts

&seed
from
12,005
sheepyard
2,865
3,584 live-
potatoes

clover 153
8,544
stock
1,910
pigs 1, 0 0 7
milk

poultry

&530*
632 livestock
176 beet

1,478
milk

155 =cucumbers
pigs

and cabbage
 (ctd on next page)
* Stumpfe lists these receipts (453, 198 and 530 marks) under the head
of “Insgemein” (“General Receipts”).—Ed.
PNNNMNNNQ
PNNNMNNNQ
PNNNMNNNQ

V. I. LENIN

[c t d]
Outlays
a) taxes
a) salaries
purchases
a) building
b) fire
and wages
a) livestock
repairs
and hail
of farm-
Sundries
b) feed
b) transporta-
t o t a l
insur-
hands
c) artificial
tion, car-
ance
b) day wages
fertilisers
riage, mail
c) others
a)

7,093
4,939
a)
12,506
1,617
111,398
&
&
(farm requirements)
&
b)
2,120
19,221
36,593
b)
11,175
1,162
(distillation)
&
c)
11,796
2,223

a


&

(sundries)
—
(blacksmith,

b
—
saddle-maker
cartwright)
a
4 2
6 3


a & b = 33 &

&
—
(blacksmith,
b

—
etc.)
a)
1,374
a)
9,933
sundries: 2,355
a)
14,557
a)

b)

b)
24,725
purchase of
b)
24,552
b)
1 , 1 1 1
1 ù 0, 3 ú 0
1,084
c)
4,089
grain=5,423
c)
10 ,052
c)
2,914
food for
steam plough =
sheepyard
6,168 = pay to
farm-hands
2,530
expenses=
 artisans
4,962
1,595
heating
1,500
firewood
and timber
a
a
purchase of seed
a)

general expenses
&

&
1,560

b)


ú, ú 0 0
b
b
c)

275 black-
smith, etc.
a)

—
a)

blacksmith,
b)

sundries: 65
b)

etc. 3 1
ú 0 3
a)
1,288
a)
5,336
2,836
a)
2,070
a)

38,298
b)
2,238
b)
13,228
firewood and coal
b)
5,320
b)


sundries: 661
c)

c)

farm- hands
sheepyard expenses seeds: 177
2,714
and food
11 3
artisans
a)

a
2 62
a)

a)
—
4,6 33
&
1,137
artisans
b)

b)
—
b)

b

old-age insur-
c)

c)

food for
ance=34
seed 147
farm- hands
a)

—
general 68
a)


b)

b)

blacksmith,
c)

etc.
!
!
!
!
!
!


Profit (less
Net
Same
remuneration
income
per ha
to owner)
marks
22,091
20,591
36.72
Big
— 1,500
farm
1,390
1,040
50.12
Medium
Group I
—
350 (!!)
farm


52.20
Small
—
300 (!!)
farm
52,364
50,864
118.40
Big
— 1,500
farm
5,566
5,116
99.32
Medium
Group II
—

farm
1,602
1,152
135.56
Small
—

farm
30,369
29,469
76.04
Big
—

farm
3,911
3,461
84.92
Medium
Group III
—

farm
1,608

89.72
Small
—

farm
PNNNNMNNNNQ
PNNNNMNNNNQ
PNNNNMNNNNQ

V. I. LENIN

Notes 
 
to 
 
Tables*
No. 1. “It was impossible to establish the land assessment
there (medium farm of Group I), but the ploughland was
almost of the same quality as on the landowner’s estate (big
farm I), possibly slightly more uniform” (p. 63).
About Group I, the author (who was employed on the
estate for two years and has a knowledge of the countryside
(p. 66)), says:
While, on the strength of the big outlays under the head
of feed and artificial fertilisers, and also the large expen-
diture on wages, and taking account of the sandy soil,
the landowner’s estate should be characterised as highly
intensive and undoubtedly quite up to the modern standard,
the very opposite has to be said of the two peasant farms.
“In almost every respect they are still being run on the old
lines, and their production should be classified as extensive,
in terms of capital and labour. No feed or fertilisers
are purchased; on the contrary, considerable quantities
of straw and also rye and potatoes, especially, are sold.
In consequence, there is insufficient compensation of nutri-
tive substances.... The result is worse crops and a shortage
of livestock.
“The stubbornness with which local peasants stick to
their old habits is very hard to understand, especially in
view of the good example they daily have before them,
which could, after all, stimulate them to competition.
However, in the recent period, it appears, there, too, a
turn for the better is beginning” (p. 61).
Remuneration for the owner’s labour is reckoned at
7,500 for the big farm (the usual salary of a manager!!) ÷ 5
(the owner has 5 estates!!) = 1,500. For the medium farm—
350 (“the usual pay for the country” (p. 64) for managing
such a farm!). For the small farm—300 (“a unit!!! half
the size of the preceding one” p. 66).
No size of family is given.
Concerning Group II, Stumpfe remarks that the farms
are not quite comparable, because the l a n d i s b e t t e r
on the big farm (the whole farm is a pearl among the Sile-
sian estates (p. 74), according to a professor from Halle!!),
* See pp. 232-36.—Ed.
Sic!
!??
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|


and it is m u c h b e t t e r situated, only 1 mile from
Breslau (the small farms are much farther away). Still!!
small farming is particularly profitable!!!
About the medium farm of Group II: “But the espe-
cially great advantage of peasant farming is that it is
entirely in the owner’s hands, and that work in one’s
own interest and for one’s personal profit will nearly
always be of higher value, and more economical and
profitable than work in the interest of others” (p. 69).
For the small farm, remuneration is 450 marks = (1)
for the owner—350 & (2) 100 marks to his wife’s parents,
who substitute for hired labour (pp. 72-73). [I must say
that the substitution is cheap!]
The medium farm is said to be on the modern level as well,
and is in general quite faultless, not worse than the big farm.
(No detailed data on machinery!!)
The village has an amalgamated dairy, and there is
joint use of machinery, joint purchase of fertilisers, etc.
About Group III we learn only that the big farm is excel-
lently run (p. 74) [The entire description of Group III
is highly superficial (pp. 74-77).]
Stumpfe’s conclusion: the smaller the holding, the
larger the rent (p. 77).
...There is not the slightest doubt that on peasant
farms where the owner takes due care of the progress
of operations or takes part in them himself, the work
is performed qualitatively and quantitatively very
differently from the way it is done on the landowners’
estates, with the exception, perhaps, of the quanti-
tative side in case of piecework (p. 78).
...which is why, despite the partially insignificant gross
income, the net profit of the small farms was still higher...
(p. 78).
G r o u p I. Receipts in marks from (p. 78)
cropping
livestock
general
total
farming
total
per
total
per
total
per
total
per
4 ha
4 ha
4 ha
4 ha
Big
farm
63,652
28. 37
27,289
12.16

0. 34
91,715
40. 89
Medium ”
1,257
15. 14

9.13
—
—
2,015
24. 27
Small
”

15. 46

12.27
—
—
1,109
27. 72
!
^^!!
 !!
PNMNQ

V. I. LENIN

etc., etc., the same thing all over again.
The peasant is also able to slash his expenses in
the household budget (p. 80), etc.
The same: p. 8 3 (“living within their means”)
He argues that there is a tendency on the part of sugar and
distillation enterprises to branch out from agriculture, etc.,
and that c o-o p e r a t i v e s place the advantages also within
reach of the small farms (p. 85), etc. (cf. D a v i d—echoes this).
The machine does not play the same part in agriculture
(c f. D a v i d!).
“It is at any rate beyond doubt that the steam
plough does not at all reduce production costs” (p. 87)
(cf. Bensing and Fischer)
The small farmer d o e s t h e r e p a i r s h i m-
s e l f (!!) (p. 92) and his implements last longer
(p. 92)—“This is undoubtedly also connected with
the higher earnings of artisans on the big farms (not
because the big ones pay more, but because) there
are all sorts of discards of tools and wood ends, which
would be in use on a small farm for a long time yet
(!!). In general, this effort to make use even of the
smallest objects, this possibility of pressing down
to a minimum expenses on the farm’s small current
requirements is an important characteristic advantage
of the small farm...” (p. 92).
The Social-Democrats have also issued their threats
in the countryside—there will be strikes as well, and
all this is a much greater danger to the big farms (94).
The big farmer’s expenses on labour are higher,
because he has to feed whole families of labourers,
whereas the small farmer for the most part takes
on unmarried men, and although the labourer’s
food is considerably better on the peasant farms
and is, consequently, costlier than on the land-
owners’ estates, we have here, on the other hand,
the resultant much higher productivity of labour
by young, strong and well-fed labourers, and this
fact is of great importance, especially since much
account has to be taken also of the incentive and
educational element in the owner’s preliminary
and joint work (p. 95).
!!
 !! {
 !!
!!
N.B.


“All the organisation of the work on the big and
small farms, in Silesia at least, is such that t h e r e
i s d e c i d e d l y n o r e a s o n t o d o u b t the
lower cost of labour on the peasant farms” (p. 96).
—again there is mention of the stimulating
influence of the labour of the owner and h i s
c h i l d r e n (p. 96). The peasants provide better
food for the farm-hands.
Disability 
and 
old-age 
insurance 
is 
another
burden on the big farm:
Group II
total 490 marks big
farm 0.30
marks

”
medium
”
0.16
”
per Morgen

”
small
”

”
(p. 101) The Social-Democrat gentlemen have
blundered badly over agriculture....
p. 102. Sering on settlement (“putting labour at
the disposal” of the landowning gentlemen!!),—
and “Landed estates are unable to compete with
the immense capital which is contained in the
h a n d s and f e e t of these men [the settlers]”
(Sering, quoted p. 102).
p. 106: the big farms are mostly superior in
commercial terms, but the co-operatives will help
the peasant.
p. 108: the peasants usually sell their corn and
livestock l e s s profitably [but that is said to
be balanced out by other things].
“It is not the German Junker that is the enemy
of the peasant; the two have, apart from inessen-
tial issues which are mostly of internal importance,
the same interests and the same adversaries. This
is a conviction which has lately been strongly
making its way” (p. 1 1 3).
There you have Stumpfe!
Written between June 1901
and March 1903
First published in 1938
Printed from the original
in Lenin Miscellany XXXI
N.B.
!
!
N.B.
||
||
||
||
||
PNMNQ
!
PMQ
PMQ